Town of Westwood v. William T. Broderick.

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

25-P-1025

TOWN OF WESTWOOD

vs.

WILLIAM T. BRODERICK.1

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendant, William T. Broderick, challenges an order

entered by a judge of the Housing Court dismissing his appeal

from an earlier order allowing the issuance of a new execution

of possession in favor of the plaintiff, the town of Westwood

(town), and denying Broderick's motion to correct the record.

As we discuss in more detail below, it is undisputed that

Broderick failed to timely docket his appeal pursuant to Mass.

R. A. P. 10, as appearing in 481 Mass. 1618 (2019). Broderick

claims, however, that his neglect in this regard was excusable

due to a serious medical condition for which he was hospitalized

1Individually and as beneficiary of the Buckmaster Cove
Nominee Realty Trust.
for four months. The judge was not persuaded and found instead

that Broderick's neglect was inexcusable and, as noted,

dismissed his appeal.2 We have conducted a careful review of the

record and conclude that the judge did not abuse his discretion

in finding that Broderick failed to demonstrate that his neglect

was excusable and, therefore, we affirm.

Background.3 The town acquired ownership of a property

located in Westwood by virtue of a final judgment entered in the

Land Court for unpaid real estate taxes. The town served a

notice to quit on Broderick and when he did not vacate the

premises within thirty days, the town commenced a summary

process eviction action in the Housing Court. The town then

filed a motion for summary judgment. Broderick, who is an

attorney, represented himself at the hearing on the town's

motion and was granted additional time to file an affidavit in

opposition. Broderick filed an affidavit but apparently did so

under the wrong docket number. Ultimately, the town's motion

2 Rule 10 (a) (1) of the Massachusetts Rules of Appellate
Procedure requires the appellant to docket the appeal within
fourteen days "after receiving from the clerk of the lower court
the notice of assembly of the record." Section (c) provides
authority to dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with
subsection 10 (a) "upon a finding of inexcusable neglect."

3 We recite the facts as set forth by the judge in his order
on the town's motion to reissue execution and Broderick's motion
to correct the record dated September 16, 2024, and his order
dismissing Broderick's appeal dated May 7, 2025.

2
for summary judgment was allowed, and judgment and execution of

possession entered in favor of the town in March and April 2024,

respectively.

As it turned out, the execution was not levied, and when it

expired in July 2024, the town filed a motion for a new

execution. At the same time, Broderick filed a motion to

correct the record to reflect that his affidavit in opposition

to the motion for summary judgment had been filed under the

wrong docket number. Following a hearing, the town's motion was

allowed, and Broderick's motion was denied.

Thereafter, on September 25, 2024, Broderick filed a notice

of appeal from the order described above. A notice of assembly

of record on appeal was sent to both parties on September 27,

2024. Consequently, Broderick was required to docket the appeal

within fourteen days of September 27, but he did not do so.

Approximately four months later, on January 17, 2025, the town

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. A hearing on the town's

motion to dismiss was held on May 5, 2025. At the hearing,

Broderick acknowledged that he had not docketed the appeal but

explained that his poor health, including a four-month stay in

the hospital, prevented him from doing so and he requested

additional time to retain counsel. In a detailed order issued

3
two days later, the judge allowed the town's motion and

dismissed Broderick's appeal.

Discussion. The question before us is whether the

dismissal of Broderick's appeal was proper. "The test to

determine whether the judge was warranted in dismissing [the

defendant's] appeal is whether he abused his discretion."

Russell v. McOwen-Hanelt, 413 Mass. 106, 109 (1992), cert.

denied, 506 U.S. 1051 (1993). Although it also appears

undisputed that Broderick was hospitalized for a serious cardiac

issue from December 16, 2024, through April 19, 2025, he

provided no reasonable excuse for not docketing the appeal

before or after he was in the hospital. The judge noted that

being hospitalized is "an extraordinary circumstance," but

concluded Broderick "offer[ed] no compelling reason why he did

not docket his appeal" either in the months before or weeks

after he was hospitalized. In addition, the judge was not

persuaded that Broderick needed to retain appellate counsel to

assist him as he had demonstrated the ability to ably represent

himself throughout the proceedings.4 While we are sympathetic to

4 The town claims that at the hearing Broderick attempted to
excuse his neglect on the additional ground that he was not
familiar with the appellate process. Broderick disagrees and
asserts that he was only asking for time to hire an appellate
attorney. Given our conclusion, we need not resolve this
dispute.

4
Broderick's circumstances, we discern no basis for concluding

that the judge abused his discretion.

Order dismissing appeal
affirmed.

By the Court (Vuono, Henry &
Singh, JJ.5),

Clerk

Entered: May 13, 2026.

5 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

5